Configuration according to Porkpiehat...

Windows Edition
Home
User Access Control
Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer
Real-time security
Comodo Firewall 8 ( Proactive, and HIPS enabled ),Qihoo 360 TSE (BD, Avira disabled), VoodooShield Pro, WinPatrol Plus
Firewall security
Periodic malware scanners
Zemana Anti Malware, Malwarebytes Anti Malware
Malware sample testing
Browser(s) and extensions
Cyberfox - Disable DHE, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, Privacy Settings, Bitdefender TrafficLight
Waterfox with same extensions
Maintenance tools
CCleaner, Auslogics DiskDefrag

Ink

Administrator
Verified
Jan 8, 2011
22,490
If the Antivirus is NOT installed, you are using Comodo Firewall NOT Comodo Internet Security. o_O

If the Antivirus is installed, but disabled, why did you install the Internet Security version. :rolleyes:
 

porkpiehat

Level 6
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
May 30, 2015
277
I didn't realise at the time, that the Firewall version had all of the options that the Internet Security version has but w/o the av. So I downloaded CIS, but did not install the AV.... I hope that makes sense..
 
Last edited:

Tony Cole

Level 27
Verified
May 11, 2014
1,639
I do understand about UAC set to minimum, I did have it disabled, but read a lot of comments both here and other forums, it really does help protect the system, maximum would drive me crazy. You have all the area's well covered against today's nasties.
 

JM Safe

Level 39
Verified
Top Poster
Apr 12, 2015
2,882
Hi, it is a good config, because it is secured and solid.
I suggest you to install MPC-HC instead of VLC, because it is faster and better.
Thanks for sharing it ;) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LabZero and scot

sonylxn

Level 4
Verified
Jan 26, 2015
160
^
my favorite media player is potplayer, you might want to take a look at it ;)

also, for archiver, i've used peazip in the past but didn't like it, i switched to simpler alternatives like izarc and bandizip

other than that, it is very solid configuration
 
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Mar 15, 2011
13,070
Well since you are considering to test dangerous phishing or probably malware then try to conduct on virtual machine; or conduct the system image to undo any possible changes.

You may consider another browser as backup in case of any problem, and add other on demand scanners like Hitman Pro and Zemana AM to your system but if you don't want then place on USB as arsenal tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
Jun 14, 2015
857
I do understand about UAC set to minimum, I did have it disabled, but read a lot of comments both here and other forums, it really does help protect the system, maximum would drive me crazy. You have all the area's well covered against today's nasties.
Anything above 'disabled' is a nuisance. UAC asks _every_ time I run the _same_ programs "Do you want to allow...?" That's completely daft. Whatever malware that's crafty enough to get by my web filters, AV, HIPS, BB is probably going to get by UAC.
 
D

Deleted member 178

UAC is the only one that works at kernel level others don't , others will fail a day or another, UAC will not.
 

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
Jun 14, 2015
857
Ah yes, fair enough. I don't know that that makes it 100% impenetrable though. It corrupts a UAC-approved process and it will be quiet. It corrupts a non-UAC approved process and it's the same annoying prompt the user gets every time, business as usual.

Until UAC can be used to prompt on unauthorised access only, it is worthless. (Have you ever cleaned malware off of a computer that has UAC set to default? I can't remember one that didn't have it at default since the users prone to malware aren't prone to looking at things to turn them off or understand why they are there.)
 
D

Deleted member 178

In fact no known exploits were able to breach UAC unless the user click on it or allow a process without knowing what is it... normally no one should allow a process comming from nowhere.

in what case you allow a process/exe in UAC:

1- an executable you just downloaded from a very trusted site and that you have checked it's genuine.
2- there is no 2 ! :D

btw, UAC is best used as default
 

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
Jun 14, 2015
857
The problem is that UAC prompts on known processes. If it'd only prompt on unknown ones it'd be great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koroke San
D

Deleted member 178

The problem is that UAC prompts on known processes. If it'd only prompt on unknown ones it'd be great.

UAC is designed to ask the user authorization when a certain sensitive area of the system is going to be accessed (depending the setting ) it is not supposed to differentiate between good or bad files (that is the role of Windows Defender).

Many people mistakenly took UAC to be a like a BB, it is not ! to be simple , UAC is just a kernel level based Anti-executable with a "whitelist" based on the settings (tighter the settings is , more process UAC will ask for )
 

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
Jun 14, 2015
857
UAC is designed to ask the user authorization when a certain sensitive area of the system is going to be accessed
That would be 'HIPS'. Except it is a daft HIPS that doesn't have a configurable whitelist. It prompts me when I run MSI Afterburner (surely Microsoft has heard of MSI and, yes, it is digitally signed). It prompts me when I run my disk defragmenter. The response to user feedback on this? "It wasn't designed that way." OK, so, then, you have a poor design and we're just supposed to work with that? Nuh uh.

If any security product had that design philosophy ("No, you cannot trust your own programs; you have to answer the prompt every time"), it wouldn't be in business very long.

Besides, how much malware gets installed only by a user being tricked into installing it? Do you think a UAC prompt that prompts on every system change is going to be heeded? "Well, yes, I'm installing System Tuner Ultra Professional 2099, so of course I'll allow it!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koroke San
D

Deleted member 178

If any security product had that design philosophy ("No, you cannot trust your own programs; you have to answer the prompt every time"), it wouldn't be in business very long.

Appguard is just that, nothing is trustful until you allow it. Appguard is quite remarkable and still alive

Besides, how much malware gets installed only by a user being tricked into installing it? Do you think a UAC prompt that prompts on every system change is going to be heeded? "Well, yes, I'm installing System Tuner Ultra Professional 2099, so of course I'll allow it!"

then it is the user's fault, UAC did his job, it warned. that is it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top